Deepak Kapoor vs Bank Of India on 14 August, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Deepak Kapoor vs Bank Of India on 14 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.03.2018 and first appeal dated 08.05.2018:-

Page 1 of 6

(i) Information whether any loan has been applied on property bearing no.

AE-90, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from bank's branch.

(ii) If the answer of query no. (i) is Yes, provide the complete copies of documents along with office noting regarding the query no. (i).

(iii) information whether any loan has been sanctioned on property bearing no. AE-90, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from bank's branch.

(iv) If the answer of query no. (iii) is Yes, provide the name of borrower and sanctioned amount.

(v) copies of documents along with office notings on what strength the said loan has been sanctioned to the borrower.

(vi) information what is the loan disbursal amount.

(vii) copies of documents on what strength the said loan has been disbursed to the borrower.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank Of India, Near P.V.R Plaza Hall, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 11.04.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.05.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 15.06.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 28.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 28.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the he had vested interest in the property and the respondent had illegally denied the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.04.2018 denied information under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act. The FAA agreed with the view taken by CPIO.

Page 2 of 6

5. The appellant, along with his advocate Harish Kohli, attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent did not respond to the call and an SMS sent for attending the hearing was also not responded. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was the owner of the property at AE-90, Shalimar Bagh. The appellant further submitted that the property was rented to the respondent bank, meanwhile, he had entered into an agreement to sell with a third party i.e. Shri Bhupinder Kumar Jain. However, due to certain dispute with that party, the Agreement was not executed. The appellant claimed that it came to his knowledge that the bank had granted a loan to the Shri Bhupinder Jain mortgaging his property and therefore he had requested for the documents relating to loan disbursement to Shri Bhupinder Jain.

5.2. The respondent while defending their reply dated 11.04.2018 submitted that the appellant was neither the borrower nor the guarantor of the loan account referred to in RTI application. Therefore, the loanee being their customer information was held by them in fiduciary capacity and the same was denied to the appellant under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent is incomplete and evasive. The appellant claimed to be the owner of the property which was allegedly mortgaged by third party and loan was sanctioned by the respondent. The appellant have produced the documents relating to the property and the reply given by the respondent in that regard was neither supported by relevant documents nor well explained. It may also be noted that the respondent were not well versed with facts of the case and was unable to assist the Commission properly. In view of the incomplete reply, the Commission directs the Page 3 of 6 Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Veerendrapratap Singh, CPIO, and Shri Deepak Kumar Gupta, the then CPIO, to show cause as to why penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not giving proper reply within 30 days. Shri Veerendrapratap Singh is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon Shri Deepak Kumar Gupta, the then CPIO; submit his written explanation and secure his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions must be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 13.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, NEW DELHI ZONE, STAR HOUSE, H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, MIDDLE / OUTER CIRCLE, NEAR P.V.R PLAZA HALL, NEW DELHI - 110001 THE F.A.A., BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, NEW DELHI ZONE, STAR HOUSE, H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, MIDDLE / OUTER CIRCLE, NEAR P.V.R PLAZA HALL, Page 4 of 6 NEW DELHI - 110001 DEEPAK KAPOOR Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission